To create a greater understanding of men and women and our struggle in todays society, specifically The United States. Please feel free to contribute and offer your own writings and information in the comments section.

"we no longer need husbands to have children, nor do we have to have children if we don’t want to. Biological parenthood in a nuclear family need not be the be-all and end-all of womanhood—and in fact it increasingly is not. Today 40 percent of children are born to single mothers."

An excellent read. Women have declared they are finally independent. This is a blessing for men!

Does this mean they are finally independent and can raise their fatherless bastard children in their own families? If so, that would finally make them the walking f**k holes they have become.

This is a blessing to men IF WE EMBRACE OUR INDEPENDENCE AND LIBERATION AS WELL. Plan your life of independence accordingly men. You don't owe them and their bastard kids a damn thing. Their value begins and ends as the walking f**k holes they so aspire to be.

Now that they are virtual whores I believe its time to legalize prostitution. Women should be sold as pieces of meat from red light districts. I want to see them lined up to be window shopped with a price tag on them. They should be sold as products. Something to momentarily serve as a f**k bag.

Women have their strategy mapped out. Their goal is the unfettered excercise of hypergamy. Secure resources by any means necessary then get the best genes from a high value male specimen that would never commit to her in marriage but will lay a fu*king on her and impregnate her. In this fashion their animal brain does not distinguish unprotected intercourse vs. protected intercourse. The strategy outlined and that is indeed taking place just goes to show you how they view men and marriage all along.

So, a word to the wise, the animals women have become want one thing, resources and genes. Their primordial animal hind brains are finally liberated. See them as the animals they have become and plan your interactions and commitments to them accordingly. Be smart, don't get a modern liberated gene shopping independent animal whore knocked up. Even withing marriage you are legally screwed. Don't do it. Play the field to your advantage. Remember, two can play this game...adapt.

Wednesday, October 5, 2011

Just read the below article on CNN news. The truth is men will be just fine. If anyone can survive it is men. In our post liberation society men owe nothing to women, women's families and women's children. Men by law are not allowed to have children, they are women's property.

Somewhere women got the idea that men owe money to women's families...again, men owe women, women's families and women's children nothing.

Child Support = Fatherhood. Despite what women say and their marriage 2.0 laws convey, Fatherhood can not be replaced with money.

Lol the same old tired solution to the problems women have created is offered....men need to "man up". What ignorant filth.

"One explanation of the change in average age of first-time mothers is that the proportion of first births to women 35 and older has increased nearly eight times since 1970, the researchers say."

We know that this age onward is the twilight of female fertility. If we further add in the fact that 1 in 4 women now carry an STD most prominent of which is HPV disease, this further serves to decrease their fertility (See: HERE (Women's vaginas now more toxic than tobacco)).

I believe that with in-vitro fertilization treatment being as expensive as it is, combined with the rate of growth in demand we are experiencing for this procedure, along with demographic population trends and current debt obligations we are currently experiencing, paying to make women's wombs fertile will be an unsustainable expenditure. Reality is that we simply can't afford it.

The fertility quotient clearly places problems in the age 35-40 rangeSource: Management of the Infertile Woman by Helen A. Carcio and The Fertility Sourcebook by M. Sara Rosenthal

To be honest I suspect that we will increasingly be overrun by the foreign hordes pounding at our gates if not having to open immigration policy in order to stem our decline. I do not expect American culture to remain homogeneous for very long. If anything I expect us to become an ever more divided nation along the lines of the socio-ethnic, gender, fundamental moral ethos as related to the social construct and policy but also religion \ the lack thereof. When a culture is dissolved to these levels and representation is divided accordingly, discord ensues. Increasingly as the core foundation of the mated pair bond breaks down, we witness disparate representation by socio-political and socio-economic gender class, and at this point it is mainly on behalf of women. The natural consequence is a further exacerbation of the initial problem i.e. the breakdown in the male\female mated pair bond and the social structure that facilitates it.

In-Vitro fertilization is very expensive. Given all indications I believe the trends which make our women increasingly infertile to begin with will continue to increase. The increasingly lower fertility rate itself causes the impact of future liability to fund such treatment in the current moment to be fiscally unsound. Suffice as to say we already have or will soon reach an event horizon that can not be returned from. This is to say that the problem is self compounding and exponential in scope.

There is indeed a point at which the lower marginal yield of new lives born in the current and past moments will be unable to sustain the fiscal liability of the cost to benefit ratio of applying such treatment. Methods to make our women's wombs fertile again must become more cost effective than they are now and done so as soon as possible and furthermore efforts must be made to facilitate the male \ female mated pair bond to increase the birth rate altogether. Otherwise, it appears to me that our children will be unable to sustain our current, prospectful and projected debt obligations and not just this area....in all areas.

However, it does seem that women have an emergency response otherwise known as the biological clock. Though the mated pair bond itself is breaking down we do have loose knit cohabitation along with single mother births. Women find a way at this point to get pregnant regardless of circumstances of the relationship. In this case I expect the trend of single mother birth may perhaps be keeping this particular liability of infertility in check. For those who believe that men should be members of the family, the lives of their children and have the end goal of child birth within this framework, infertility is on course to increasingly become a problem for those who plan to wait until the creation of a married family.

Outlines male disenfranchisement from education, the family, fatherhood, the workforce, health etc. Excellent top minds speaking about the fact that men and boys are far worse off than women in all measurable realms. This is what women call being "oppressed"

Personally, I think the best answer for men is to find ourselves for ourselves and to live for ourselves as individuals. You no longer have to define yourself as part of the family or as a father to children as these roles are dwindling away. I think men will have to find another home for ourselves on the margins of society. This role by all means has to be empowering to men and not defeating. You no longer have to define yourself by how adequate you are to be "eligible" to a woman or family. Patriarchal society is dead. The construct now is the same it was when we roamed our ancestral primordial plains and likewise the final days of the Roman Republic. Women's "liberation" is nothing new. Men must make the adjustment or face the consequences of your own exploitation. Like the man in the video said, look at marriage law and how fatherhood is valued by law, look at what men are valued for under marriage law. There is no point. The laws were changed in the 70's during the second wave feminist revolution. We must ask why women fought so hard to institute no-fault divorce law and default entitlement to child custody and male resource support.

Marriage was what they wanted to escape but that was only the beginning. The only reason men produce was never for ourselves. We can change this. We CAN live up to only ourselves.

Men should withdraw so to speak and live according to however we want to live. The future of manhood entails responsibility and accountability to ourselves and for ourselves alone.

In a way, men can now see themselves as free. There is no place else to go. Fighting against such things is humiliating and self defeating. For many I can see more empowerment for men in embracing our marginalization and making it work for us and for our own interests. Men can see this as our downfall or embrace it...Some call it MGTOW or going Ghost. It's not a bad idea really. If anyone else has a better solution let me know but despite the best wishes of men I see this as the nations future.

Now...there is the other side of things, there are the men who think we can make a change but that will not be possible without the efforts of women. Women will not budge. You will not see groups of women gathering and pondering how to make things better. Feminism is not about equality or creating a common felicity between men and women. It is a zero sum game when you look at the things feminism advocates for.

I watch the collective actions, political and social agency of women, many of us do. We have to understand what the massive distribution of societal and governmental resources women advocate to be directed to themselves is for. We have to understand what women's goals are. It is to be independent. Men must become independent as well. Incidentally this means cutting off the last aspects of female dependency upon men and embracing mutual dis-need. Mutual independence is mutual dis-need. Men just have not completed the other side of the picture.

Does any of this mean men have to be miserable..not at all. Like women, we to can "empower" ourselves and "liberate" ourselves. We have to ask ourselves what is it all along that women were wanting to "empower" "liberate" and seek "independence" from? Think about this for a moment and you will come to your answer.

We must complete what women have set out to do for themselves. The man in the conference thinks we will be able to divert resources away from women and towards the wellbeing of men, young men and boys. This will not happen. I do not believe women will allow this to happen. Diverting resource protection and provision away from women will never happen. They will always want more. We know this...

What men do have control over is our own resources and our own use and utility and who and what it is devoted to. Who among us wants to become an isolated resource producing male for an independent woman and her children? Who wants to become a "turnip" as the government now calls it? Who among us want to submit to such a fate? Male enfranchisement only exists in such a scenario if women allow it to. Look at the numbers and ask yourselves what is happening. Understand that female "empowerment" "liberation" and "independence" means polyandry and unattached hypergamy, it means matriarchy. Under ALL matriarchal structures males are not members of the mated pair bond nor the lives of their children. This is what the base animal instincts of women are acting out. What role will you play in this, where do YOU want your life to end up in all of this?

Work for change men but at the same time don't embrace your expendability and disposability to closely as it will make you angry, resentful and full of the worst of feelings. In the mean time while we are supporting the formation of a better and positive future for men and our roles in society we must live for ourselves...This is all we really have. 'Confronting feminism through an honest assessment of what it is, how men can utilize this understanding to get what we want, and how men bear responsibility and face the consequences for our own choices in a feminist paradigm can only lead to a better outcome in the future for men.'Men must learn to play the game.

Identifying and recognizing misandry, gynocentric societal changes and its religion of feminism does not entail whining about how you’re oppressed; it entails identifying your opponent, their strengths and weaknesses, and formulating a strategy to go forward and achieve success despite the changes women have made.' Men can be independent in this new order as well. No one says you can't live as an independent man and free from female dependency and choices that are financed by our use as men. Men must finance our own enfranchisement. Men must create the compliment of feminism for ourselves. We must finish the job.

Take what women have done and run with it men. Do what women have done but do it for yourselves. Free yourself and make the changes women have made work for your best interests alone. This will require an adjustment to what you were taught through the remnants of the patriarchal customs which remain. Following through on patriarchal expectations toward and for women is sure suicide and servitude to women and the State. Understand clearly that patriarchy is dead. Men must cut the cords or face the consequences of matriarchal law. It is your choice. You can hold onto the elements of patriarchy that served women but gain none of the benefits or you can cut the last cords and set yourself free. Understand that the two parent biological family and marriage in America IS NO LONGER THE NORM. We are officially living under matriarchy.

Understand that marriage, monogamy and the social mores that outlawed not only the extreme patriarchal advent of polygamy but also the expression of matriarchal female hypergamous rotating polyandry was a male idea. This male idea of a higher objective moral reasoning and the construct of a society based on punishment and limits upon our animal instincts has been destroyed. Understand that what women were seeking in the changes they made was and is in fact the license to increase their genetic fitness by removing all limitations upon obtaining this ideal. Women were seeking to open the flood gates of the mating dynamic of the past i.e. hypergamous rotating polyandry.

Understand the ways of our animal natures as this is the future of gender relations and the mating paradigm. This is life under matriarchy. We are indeed moving toward a matrifocal, matrilinieal and matriarchal society. Men must learn to survive and function well toward our own enfranchisement under this new order while at the same time learning to understand our own disenfranchisement and how to deal with this to the best of our health and wellbeing.

Sunday, June 5, 2011

It is the prerogative of The Women's Section Zhenotdel i.e. The Council On Women and Girls along with the U.S. Department of Education's assistant secretary for civil rights, Russlynn H. Ali to remove all due process of law for men, remove the standards upon burden of proof to protect the accused, remove the right to a fair and impartial trial along with a trial by jury and for criminal offense trials to be transfered from the justice system to the authority of College campus Kangaroo Courts in the name of protecting and providing for women.

From http://www.stanforddaily.com/2011/04/29/op-ed-a-thumb-on-the-scale-of-justice/ on how trials should treat people accused of sexual misconduct or relationship abuse:

Specifically, panelists are provided with an article by Lundy Bancroft called “Why Does He Do That? Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men.” The article instructs fact-finders that, “When people take a neutral stand between you and your abusive partner, they are in effect supporting him and abandoning you, no matter how much they may claim otherwise.” Further, the panelists are taught that, “to remain neutral is to collude with the abusive man, whether or not that is your goal.”

Another article provided to judicial panelists is equally biased against the accused, who is almost invariably referred to as a male. That document is from the Center for Relationship Abuse Awareness and provides judicial panelists with “indicators” of an “abuser.” It states that an abuser will “feel victimized” and “act persuasive and logical.” An impartial training system would not teach judicial panelists that if an accused defends himself persuasively and logically, they should infer that he is an “abuser.” The Bancroft article admonishes, “Everyone should be very, very cautious in accepting a man’s claim that he has been wrongly accused of abuse or violence. The great majority of allegations of abuse — though not all — are substantially accurate. An abuser almost never ‘seems like the type.’”

Dear SS Command: Please pass this to your officers:

When rounding up undesirables look for the tell tail signs of fear when a jew is asked to board for transport. The Jew may exhibit signs of “feeling victimized” or “act persuasive and logical” in his defense. He may attempt to reason with you and tell you he has a child and a family and to please not send him on the transport. This is a sure sign he is a jew. “Everyone (all SS soldiers) should be very, very cautious in accepting a jews claim that he has been wrongly accused of being so. The great majority of allegations of jewdom — though not all — are substantially accurate. Trust your instincts based on this instruction. Remember, A jew almost never ‘seems like he is one” That is all….Heil Hitler.

What is happening is a violation of our civil rights as Americans. What is happening is very dangerous and a violation of ALL civil criminal codes of justice. Vice President Joe Biden wants swift execution of trial upon the accused conducted in no less than three days.

"Under Title IX, a woman is entitled to equal access to everything on a college campus. That includes being safe. The most devastating thing is a young girl who reports something and ends up three days later in biology class with the young man still sitting next to her." - Vice President of The United States -Joe Biden

Joe Biden says he wants to allow women to clear all their debt obligations after sentencing a man to his fate. Her credit and bills will be forgiven and a fresh line of credit issued. In other words "Domestic Violence Bankruptcy". It is not clear yet whether it will be men who are stuck with the debt or not. Joe wants to provide women with free housing under the Peoples Dept of Housing and free access to higher education under the peoples Dept. of Eduction. All she has to do is accuse any man of violence:

“Wait a minute now. I go out there and I leave this SOB, but I’ve cosigned on everything from the house to his business. I’ve cosigned on that $1,500 set of golf clubs he bought. What am I going to do? My credit’s done. So [Secretary of the Treasury Timothy] Geithner is trying to figure out ways in which we can restore a woman’s credit. The same with what we are doing at the Department of Education and the Department of Housing [and Urban Development]."

All of this and more will be provided to women without due process and trial for the accused and on her word alone:

In book 5 of the Politics, Aristotle claims that there exists two different and completely opposed ways of maintaining tyranny: either it can be done through a reign of open terror and oppression, or through the cloaking of tyranny that is exercised by the State in a virtuous form.

"The evil practices of the last (stages) and worst form of democracy are all found in tyrannies. Such are the power given to women in their families (and in society)in the hope that they will inform against (men &) their husbands"

-Aristotle

‎"women do not conspire against tyrants; and they are of course friendly to tyrannies since under them they have a good time."

-Aristotle

"This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector."
-Plato

If you feel you need to just come tell big daddy Joe, I will clear you of all credit card debt, bills and other debts, set you up in a pretty house and pay for your school baby....You just come tell big daddy if you don't like a boy ok. Make sure you vote for big daddy baby, it's you who gives me the power I seek.

"We will never be through with our fight for Liberty, because their will always be people (most especially women) who do not want the responsibility of freedom, and there will always be people who will gladly take that responsibility away from them, for the power it brings." N. Scott Mills

Men must come to the clear understanding that we do not have rights what so ever and that we no longer live in America. A full sweep attack upon men, our civil liberties and justice is under way. It has already happened. What you have read above is the expansion of it. A NATIONAL MEN'S LEGAL DEFENSE FUND MUST BE FORMED IMMEDIATELY! MEN MUST PROTECT OURSELVES FROM GOVERNMENT TYRANNY AND THE TYRANNY OF FEMALE AGENCY ENACTED FORTH BY GOVERNMENT. IF THE NATIONS WOMEN DO NOT WANT THIS I EXPECT THEM TO COME TO OUR DEFENSE IN OUR TIME OF NEED.

Friday, June 3, 2011

I like this definition but think it an all encompassing term for something that is not evil in it’s own right but certainly can and is indeed so when exercised without restraint and that is GYNOCENTRISM. Gynocentrism, given forth with no restraint has proven to have the propensity to manifest itself as “unmitigated self interest”. I have great interest in understanding it because I believe it to be a part of something integral to females. This is to say I believe it to be related to the process of sexual selection and hypergamy as well. Gynocentrism is an element of female nature that when given agency can manifest itself as "the dark feminine". Sometimes it is exercised purposefully to harm and other times it meets it's balancing force....male options.

I do know this much, it has biological origins without a doubt. I do know that males have a predisposition to feed it what it wants. I do know that of all things, it is men\males that give it its power. I do know that this force does not seem to have limits when not put in check by the balanced force of the equally enfranchised masculine. I do know that when made systemic through political agency it is a run away train. This is so because ordinarily, in the personal realm, gynocentrism is kept in check by male options. Male options are it’s natural governor.

The more options a man has, either to select females other than her (which itself is earned by gaining the ability to serve them), options and rights within marriage and family law or simply options given forth by equal protection under law\organizational policy the more gynocentrism is kept in check. However, when it is given agency in government under law as well as public institutional policy it is no longer males that have control over whether we serve it or not and to what extent nor do we have the equal opportunity to do so.

Female nature dictates that their representation, naturally, is gynocentric and therefore that she is represented disproportionately in healthcare, education, programs, job hirings, women first quotas, monetary flow, entitlements, family law, the judiciary and in general all aspects of public social infrastructure. As a socio-political class she organizes around the needs of the self.

Government is the be all and end all arbitrator of ALL male options.

“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence. It is force, and like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”

-President George Washington

Gynocentrism, when given political agency, but more importantly, DOMINANT political agency, the nature of government as a functional organism works in a symbiotic fashion with it. This is to say that government by nature seeks to grow itself as does any social organization of function built by human beings. Personified within it, as in any representative democracy is the tendency to seek approval and direction from the majority Will of the people.

Under a Constitution and a Bill of Rights, a representative democracy is supposed to be kept in check. There is supposed to be equal protection and representation under law. “Democracy (in and of itself) is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.” It is mob rule, the "tyranny of the majority".

So here is the crux of the matter, females are the majority vote in the political realm and yet also they are a socially dominant force in the public realm and this includes the domination over the dialog of our social fabric, gender issues and the public conversation itself on such matters. Their representation as a social class united towards it’s own interests is unparalleled by men. Furthermore, without the natural limits placed upon it by male options, equal rights and representation, gynocentrism becomes dominant over men in the personal realm.

When all three realms of female dominance are combined, the social-personal, the social-public, and the public-political, gynocentric nature becomes the driving force of social, political and cultural movement. It is in this way and in this fashion that it becomes consumptious and consummate. It is by the superior representation of females as a socio-political class in the realm of public (non governmental institutional policy) combined with her superior representation in the governmental realm of political and lawful policy that confounds the realm of the personal and thus the prospects for and private process of male options.

Ironically and most of all PARADOXICALLY it is male options that served her in the first place, it is male options that enfranchises men and most of all it is male options that keeps gynocentrism moderated. It is in fact the violation of the personal through secular and separate representation in the realms of public policy but also political and lawful policy that exacerbates the break down of the common felicity we naturally form with her. Subsequently, through her own actions she nullifies the very male options that served her. Her response,…...to reach out further with outstretched arms to the cold metallic arms of the government, to seek out more empowerment, protection and provision from public infrastructure to fill the void.

And so it is the case that without male options, we no longer have the power to serve her, which, incidentally, is where male power ALWAYS came from.

The ends of female agency IS gynocentric in that the ends of feminism and female nature itself is to serve her needs and in so doing, perhaps inadvertently, makes her “independent” of the need of men to fulfill them. Without male need there are no male options.

Feminism is not a separate collective from women. Feminism is the product of and the vehicle of agency manifested by female nature itself. Feminism IS the manifestation of collective female gynocentrism and it is the synergy given to it in the personal, public and political realms that makes what we are experiencing now, a self compounding, self consuming and ultimately a self destructive process. Ultimately, as the divide of representation grows between our increasingly divided gender-classes the personal social contract between us is destroyed while power is ceded from the BOTH of us toward that of State and working industry.

In past history this process has never ended well.

Idealogues in our human history who have, of all things, seen this process as a good thing, knew that female nature was the key. They knew that through the power of gynocentrism, through the power of the female along with the nature of both men and women to serve it we both could be usurped. They knew that if they fed it, it becomes an all consuming process of male enfranchisement. They knew that if power was offered it, that it would take it beyond limits, they knew that men as a class would yield to this. They were right…….

“Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included.” -Karl Marx

‎"Women do not conspire against tyrants; and they are of course friendly to tyrannies since under them they have a good time." -Aristotle

Sunday, May 29, 2011

Well, I've just got done reading some brain dead hollow analysis from feminists and corporate interests on the so called "masculinity crisis" and how this "masculinity crisis" is propagated and sold to the masses through the flickering brainwashing box of T.V.

Feminist Conclusion: "one of the reasons we keep hearing about the ‘masculinity crisis' is because it's being pushed to the forefront under the guise of "Women are becoming too powerful, so men are becoming wimps. We must put a stop to this!"

-----------------------------------------------

First, lets evaluate the shows in question:

"Work It"

"This high-concept comedy centers on two unrepentant guy's guys who, unable to find work, dress as women to get jobs as pharmaceutical reps. Not only do they pull it off, but they might just learn to be better men in the process. With unemployment an ongoing issue and women now outnumbering men in the workforce, the new comedy series Work It follows men who realize the only way to beat the current "mancession" and land a job in pharmaceutical sales is to pass themselves off as women. Why would they do that....(women are the new men right). "Being a better man sometimes means having to be a better woman."

"Man Up"

Focuses on the inadequacy of 3 men who are not "real men" but little boys. This is a try as they might spectacular of showcased inadequacy. These buffoonish inadaquate morons are sure to bring some laughs.

"Last Man Standing"

"It's a Woman's world" The show teaches "how to live in it" properly. A showcase spectacular of male redundancy, uselessness and powerlessness. Tim Allen stars as the low status husband who has no say so within the home run by his more competant, smart and adaquate wife.

In reality there is no "masculinity crisis". There is simply an encroaching threat to the welfare and posterity of our nation and the enfranchisement of the men within it. Whether anyone realizes it or not, nations rise and fall on the backs of men. It is not the nations men who are in crisis, it is the nation itself. Men should neither "man down" as Time suggests nor roll over and accept our own emasculation and expendability.

The point of these shows is to emasculate men, to get men to "man down", kill their spirits and to elevate women. The shows are not about men garnering back some form of slipping masculinity, they are designed to create confusion and instill inverse suggestive mental programming. When they are done killing off men from education, the family and the workforce we will not have gone anywhere. The truth is, when the smoke clears from this volley the men of this Republic will have our rifles trained and zeroed. Is this a threat of violence...no but it is a natural consequence of the road we are heading down.

You know, they have been bombarding men with the message that we should surrender, that we should roll over and accept what is happening to this nation, it's men and our families.

Men..I have a message for you my countrymen:

It is not "the end of men"

"You don't need to man up and become women"

"you don't need to hand over your jobs and everything else to women"

What you need to do is understand that your country is in grave danger and those in power will do everything they can to keep the threat of insurrection at bay. The nations men, when organized and on the same page are a terrifying force that the government and it's corporate masters are deathly afraid of. The strategy is to demoralize and confuse the nations men. What men need to do is prepare. What men need to do is realize your nation is on the precipice of collapse. From the mouths of men who are not afraid to confront it "we are hammering the last nails in the coffin" at the moment

The coffers of the public treasury are spent. Our debt limit has been reached, our imperial armies are over streached in costly and continual wars, the nations men are standing in invisible bread lines for unemployment rations. The stimulus packages and quantitative easing have done nothing but debase the currency causing price increases through inflation and this is only the beginning of it. This nation faces multiple angles of systemic and demographic collapse. It is staring us in the face if you turn off your TV and simply wake up.

I expect that if we do not form a cohesive threat together, the powers in play will defeat this nation. WE WILL BE OWNED from top to bottom. Your future, the future of your families and the future of your children and nation are at stake. So....please...men.....do yourselves a favor, TURN OFF THE TV AND WAKE UP.

As with Rome the last thing to go will be the military industrial complex and the government itself. Let me explain to you all that your private retirement accounts and all socialized programs are target number one. Taxes will also be increasingly levied when the massive inflation from our debt runs have completed. Realize that the printing of money and the debasement of our currency IS a tax by the way of inflation. The debasement of our currency serves nothing more than to hold back the flood waters of the inevitable. It simply buys us time.

The government is now discussing seizing control over not just private government pensions but public IRA accounts. The government is seeking everyway it can to feed itself. Governemnt will not shrink, it is not in it's nature...IT WILL DEVOUR YOU, YOUR FAMILY AND YOUR CHILDREN FIRST.

If this nations men do not regain their revolutionary spirit the Republic will die.

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember, or overthrow it"

-President Abraham Lincoln

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence. It is force, and like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

-President George Washington

Beware the growth of Government, as it is by it's very nature, force, a fearful master, it is tyranny. Do not be afraid my countryman, do not fear our government, the government should fear our people. Do not become complacent to your emasculation on the television. Do not get rapped up in "the bread and circuses" as Roman men did. FOCUS, turn off your TV and get in the game, regiment and fight to save your homeland. "Man-up" to the big picture...the disenfranchisement of the nations men and with us, the Republic itself.

If ye love "the tranquility of servitude rather than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!” -Samuel Adams

In the process of planning a camping trip with all male friends I received a remark that is very telling, it made me think. I was asked, "when you get to the summit are you going to have a circle jerk"

The circle jerk remark is the oldest one in the book and one of many typical male shaming techniques. When men decide to get together as men it is threatening to some, women included. The remark centers around validating a man in terms of how he stacks up to being worthy of getting laid but also being worthy of male "use" toward the ends for which culture seeks of him.

Biologically speaking, men and our genes have no right to be passed onto life unless a female approves. Lack of competence, acceptance and worthiness or lack of male use toward the ends of women in the present moment implies that your genes have no right to exist...now...or in the future. By getting laid, men are able to validate their own right to exist. In this way, acceptance by women defines us. In this instance the circle jerk remark suggests that the men getting together as men, for ourselves, as men, makes us so unworthy we must be gay.

Thinking like this is used by culture and many times by women themselves to invalidate men, male needs and especially male criticism of women. If you are not serving their ends you must be bitter and if you are bitter you must be unworthy and if unworthy you must be bitter that you can not get laid.

Men doing things to benefit themselves and for themselves as a man alone is threatening to women and culture. Everything in regard to what defines "being a man" is in fact defined as being so for anyone but ourselves. The only reason men cut down other men with it is for the exact same reason...to suggest that they are more worthy of women and for being of "use" than you are. It is wise to reject such notions especially so as seeing how men are in fact used to serve the ends of women and culture to our own expense and sacrifice. We are in fact the beasts of burden, the workhorses trained to forever be seeking to validate our own existence.

Men... especially now a days need to reevaluate the situation. We have to ask ourselves....what is in it for us? Are the things women and culture seek to goad us into being worthy of.....actually worthy of us? This is an important question that every man needs to ask himself. I have found that often times they are not.. especially when it comes to law and policy in regard to men's place within the family, marriage, our children and this includes our general welfare in all realms. I have found that this culture offers very little rewards for male use and utility to meet it's ends.

As such, I reject the social contract of marriage and I reject my own expendability and disposability to both the family and in warfare to defend something that will not defend or offer anything to me. My male use and male utility are to serve my own ends alone. The only thing I will offer such sacrifice for would be toward the ends of tearing out the lynch pins that attempt to hold me in place, to kick a hole in the wall to make a door where there is none and toward the ends of helping the nations men do the same.

When this nations men become disenfranchised....and we are becoming so without a doubt, the wheels come off the wagon my friend. Civilizations rise and fall on the backs of men. Systemically disenfranchise men from education, the workforce, in the family and to their own wellbeing and health and you are signing the death warrant of the Republic. Look around...the only thing keeping things in place is the continual sacrifice of men at our own expense. Expect the wailing set forth to emasculate men and the goading for men to man-up to get louder in order to keep them from waking up and still from others in the perilous attempt to get men to do so, to man-up to something. Expect the validity of men and this "masculinity crisis" the media has been shoving down our throats to get louder. Expect our women to get all the more goading, critical and inciteful toward men while their hands are stretched forth to the cold metallic arms of the government husband.

Give men nothing to fight for and the nations soldiers become something else, they become paid mercenaries not Patriot men fighting for their country. As with the Roman empire when the checks stop coming these mercenaries will turn upon the hand that fed them. Military dictatorship will follow our increasingly totalitarian State. The profiteers running our government will not survive the onslaught when this nations men turn upon them. Continue in the direction that we are and this will be our fate. I am prophesizing nothing here. It has all happened before and if we pay attention...it is happening now. However, it is not to late.

Though I do fear the course of this government will not be amended or overthrown, until it is to late. This nation is weak and it's men are confused. When they wake up, they will find the yoke of servitude strapped firmly around their neck and the sword of the totalitarian profiteering tyrant already at their throat.

Saturday, May 28, 2011

I’ve been looking into it and despite women’s bitter rejection of fatherhood many states are moving toward joint physical custody. It seems the hard work of men to be fathers is paying off. If you have not already, please go to the ACFC.org button link below and sign the shared parenting petition.

However, this does not stop women from using DV laws to attempt to gain full custody through false allegations. As feminists have seen joint custody legislation approaching they have focused heavily on their wild card…DV allegations. The goal is to remove due process of law and place the burden of guilt upon the accused who must prove themselves innocent. Feminists have been instrumental in this. However, I am hoping we can fight them and stop the progression.

Men will fight to the death in order to be fathers to our children. I think the motivation is high on both sides. Women will continue to fight men and in many cases they are still winning. Men must push at both aspects if we are going to win the right to have children and be a father. I also think with the added aspect of liability and reciprocal obligation placed upon women in divorce it will inspire women not to simply walk out on their families in divorce.

Friday, May 27, 2011

Wow, I read the below comment from a man today on a men's forum at a time when the American Empire is in the state of collapse. What is so striking is that men of high standing in Rome pleaded with men to do the same when the Roman Republic was head long toward collapse...AMAZING SIMULARITIES IN THE MESSAGE! Anyway....just found it fascinating.

"The death of marriage is a symptom – not the cause. Delighting that it frees you from the traditional burdens of manhood is delight in the death of our civilization. Biological stagnation is death, and if we don’t participate in the propagation of our forms our forms will disappear. What joy is there in total freedom from women and children when you know that your own inevitable death is nothing but another nail in our peoples’ coffin?"

"No sane man can deny the evil of the Pink Horde, but their destruction is not the answer. Only they have the power to create new people on the scale needed to perpetuate the Western tradition."

"Feminism is an attack on Western civilization – designed, unleashed, and funded by the real enemy. MGTOW is collaboration. It is defection from our male responsibility. It is our natural responsibility to be the Great Oak in the storm – to teach these women true repentance – to change their hearts – to show them their need – so that the West may be replenished. Their delusions have their prices – which reality will extract. But we Men have our own debts to pay."

I pulled the above from a men's forum today.

------ Then what is remarkable is the similarities to the below quote of a Roman Statesman and General addressing the nations men:

Upon the dissolution of the Roman family, falling birth rates, female sexuality moving from private and monogamous to public and promiscuous the Roman general, statesman, and censor Quintus Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus states in 131 B.C....

"If we could survive without a wife, citizens of Rome, all of us would do without that nuisance.” So proclaimed the Roman general, statesman, and censor.

Still, he went on to plead, falling birthrates required that Roman men fulfill their duty to reproduce, no matter how irritating Roman women might have become.

"Since nature has so decreed that we cannot manage comfortably with them, nor live in any way without them, we must plan for our lasting preservation rather than for our temporary pleasure."

Men rejected the message. What we are witnessing is just a part of the death cycle of civilization. What is happening with women is how women behave at the precipice of decline. By historical accounts their women became just as intolerable, demanding and entitled as ours have during the height of the empire. The death of the west has already happened, it is simply that they have not pulled the Stimulus plug out yet. We are being held afloat by the debasement of our currency and mounting debt.

Living in a time and place of a dying empire yields so many of the same experiences. I identify with the men of Rome. I find the whole thing fascinating.

Hmm...it is interesting when you add up the census report I've linked below for the 25-29 age group and combine it with the information in the census graph for up to age 34 demographic. Less than half are married or have divorced by age 34. I doubt there is an age above 34 where the majority of people are married or have a family within the marriage of two biological parents. It would be interesting to find out but I doubt this is the case. Marriage and married families with both biological parents present are actually the minority. Crazy huh.The above graph is a little dated the single mother birth rate is now 42%

WOW, "Nearly half of all women between the ages of 25 and 29 have never been married" The numbers are climbing with great momentum.

Our birth rate is already below replacement levels. I expect it to drop lower. The infrastructure of our social systems are not maintainable not only from government debt alone but simple birth demographics. I wonder how all this will play out. One thing is for sure. All this will continue to be blamed upon men. I see the government becoming ever more totalitarian.

The tatters of the American family will be kept on life support by ever more draconian laws against men to provide to women's families. I see a continued increase in what can be described as government husbandry in order to hold things together. However, the system can simply not support it. I believe with the death of the family the death of the civilization the common felicity of the family held together must not be to far behind.As societal structure moves toward matriarchy fatherlessness becomes more common. Women typically have children from multiple fathers. The goal of "women's liberation" is "empowerment" in this respect. The goal of "women's liberation" is "independence" to act out their base animal instincts.

Civilization, morality and justice are formed from higher objective reasoning and only come about when our animal instincts are regulated and put in check. Unlike polyandrous matriarchy, western patriarchal societies made polygamy illegal for men.

The United States of course is becoming matriarchal:

With this comes the destruction of the family, the marginalization of men from the family and fatherless children. This is the future women seek. "Independence" for women means freedom from the very constraints that hold civilization together.

It is my contention that with the reform women made to marriage law that men should not reproduce if they can help it. Men should not commit to the matriarchal marriage. After women's liberation during the final days of the Roman Republic men were so disenfranchised from becoming the sperm donors women made them to be that they refused to marry women and would rather simply have sex with them.

Abortion and the widespread use of birth control became normalized. Philosophers of the time legitimized it. Except women would simply leave their newborns on the steppes outside the city to die of exposure. The family was destroyed. When female nature was unleashed the Republic was destroyed as well.

“We Romans, who rule the world, are ruled by our women.” -Cicero (History and death of the Roman Republic)

Women's liberation laws became up for debate in the senate. Upon the deliberation upon one of them it was recorded:

"Suffer them once to arrive at an equality with you, and they will from that moment become your superiors."-Cato the Censor (234–149 B.C.) Rome (215 B.C.)

Never the less the State suitor deferred to the nations women.

Statesmen, government and generals of the time pleaded to men that they must "man up" to responsibility and marry women, to be disposable fathers to the matriarchal family, men rejected the message.

The marriage law promoted by Octavia, Augustus Caesar, was a belated attempt to reverse this process which was already well advanced in the first century A.D.

Heavy "bachelor taxes" were enacted upon men in attempt to force them to marry. The blame then was the same as it is now...upon men. Men, as we know now as well, were not the source of the nations woes.

Women's liberation occurred in Sparta as well. When women gain political agency the state becomes the male suitor. She enacts her nature through the State and from the State upon the nations men. She will not stop this....it is her nature. It is happening now in the United States. I fear there may be little we can do to stop what women are doing.

"Again, the license of the Lacedaemonian women defeats the intention of the Spartan constitution, and is adverse to the happiness of the state. For, a husband and wife being each a part of every family, the state may be considered as about equally divided into men and women; and, therefore, in those states in which the condition of the women is bad, half the city may be regarded as having no laws."

And this is what has actually happened at Sparta; the legislator wanted to make the whole state hardy and temperate, and he has carried out his intention in the case of the men, but he has neglected the women, who live in every sort of intemperance and luxury.

"The evil practices of the last (stage) and worst form of democracy are all found in tyrannies. Such are the power given to women in their families in the hope that they will inform against their husbands"

-Aristotle

‎"women do not conspire against tyrants; and they are of course friendly to tyrannies since under them they have a good time."

-Aristotle

"This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector." (most especially of women) -Plato

Wednesday, May 25, 2011

From an email from ACFC (American Coalition for Fathers and Children):

"The campaign to confront Child Support Agencies and their inhumane practices toward child support payers is off to a rousing start. But there’s more…One basis of this campaign is disgust over how child support officials identify child support payers as ‘turnips.’ We provided a link to a National Child Support Enforcement Association (NCSEA) training program titled: “Getting Blood from a Turnip: New Farming Techniques for Increasing Your Yield.”

Apparently folks at NCSEA got the message, sort of. Within hours of the start of the ‘Save the Turnips’ campaign NCSEA programmers had changed the website and pulled the reference to obligors as ‘Turnips.’ Of course, we thought you would like to see those ‘before and after’ alterations. The NCSEA is apparently still farming, just not specifically ‘turnips.’

If only the decades of damage these people have done to families through their campaigns to vilify child support obligors was as easy as altering a webpage.

---

You know, I just think that men are more than Turnips to be bled is all.

Most lack of pay to women is from the inability to pay them. Even when he can pay her the chances of him doing so increase proportionally to the amount of time he gets to be involved with his children.

These men do the best they can. Even if they could form another family like women can the risk of being cast out yet again as an isolated resource producing male is just to great to take a chance.

I pray that at very least women will petition their government to free these men from their jail cages, share parenting responsibilities and then support themselves financially. I pray women's government can have mercy upon male turnips.

Many of these women have already found another male to support the matriarchal family. These men as well are potential isolated resource producing males at the moment or are potential male turnips in the making.

I don't know how much longer we can collectively redistribute men's production capacity to support women's choices and our own lack of right to be fathers to our children. Children need fathers. What incentive is there for men to produce in the first place but by enfranchisement as members of the family?

I just wish instead of valuing men as a collective and socialized re-distributors of our providing capacity we were valued as fathers to children and could share parenting. I just wish by incentive of law that men were needed in some capacity as members of the family. I think if men had the right to be equally needed in the family or post dissolution of said family we could at least be involved in the lives of our children. I believe it might decrease the incentive given to women to abandon their family (women initiate 70+% of divorce and particularly the majority of divorces involving children). According to Los Angeles divorce consultant Jayne Major: "Divorced men are often devastated by the loss of their children. It's a little known fact that in the United States men initiate only a small number of the divorces involving children."

It makes sense that perhaps women could have some sort of equal liability, responsibility, reciprocal obligation and accountability to family...or...toward the consequences of disolving said family. It's all very sad what means to an end men have been made to become.

If only men could have a role in society, it's future and the lives of our children. I never understood why men are the ones expected to get on our knees to make a marriage proposal and offer resources to females. I don't really understand what is in it for men. I think this custom is from a time before women changed marriage laws in the 70's toward the ends of default female child custody and no-fault entitlement laws. I think marriage is a humiliating proposition for men. Among other issues afoot between the sexes I think perhaps what might be missing in the assessment upon the decline of marriage in our culture is the very real reluctance of a male incentive to commit to ending up members of a State\woman owned "Turnip" farm.

90.2% of fathers with joint custody pay the support due.79.1% of fathers with visitation privileges pay the support due.44.5% of fathers with no visitation pay the support due.37.9% of fathers are denied any visitation.66% of all support not paid by non-custodial fathers is due to the inability to pay.[1988 Census "Child Support and Alimony: 1989 Series" P-60, No. 173 p.6-7, and "U.S. General Accounting Office Report" GAO/HRD-92-39FS January 1992]

Tuesday, May 24, 2011

Kay Hymowitz speaks about the modern western independent woman crisis in America and the growing male solution being to Game the entitled, independent and empowered women down since their hypergamy is not satisfied with men "below" them or equal to them. Interesting.... I have to agree.

Yes, she is correct, men are very reluctant to marry under women's new Marriage 2.0 laws. Men have learned it is suicide for a man. It is a one way commitment. Fatherhood is not a right but a revocable privilege. So is the right to your own property, your body and the fruits of it's labor. It's ok for men to be angry about it as well.

Outside of the personal realm women are our competitors and our adversaries for jobs, for resources, for education, for healthcare you name it. Within the justice system in all realms we face the increasing deference to them in all matters. They have managed to divert all these things to themselves through advocating for institutionalized chivalry even to the point of denying men equal opportunity for education with women first laws. They diverted the Stimulus Package to themselves as well. So on a political level we must fight against them and every law they have created.

Men increasingly know that a complimentary relationship with women within the sanctity of marriage is no longer possible. Your gender married the State instead. You are doomed to remain in definite preclusion, the grey twilight between what could have been a natural and fully consummate mutually symbiotic bond with him. Something once untouched now sullied and desecrated.

Inside...deep within your only wish is to really need him. You hope that he will believe you do and that this lie will suffice. You want to believe it too. It is to late for that...you have devoted everything you seek to need in men to yourselves by law.

Deep down You lament that this has been robbed from you but may not notice that it is you who advocated for it. Your goal after all is to be "independent" "liberated" and "empowered". We have seen what this really means. The personal consecrate and sovereign now political and public. Your nature and vulnerability laid naked and bare and surrendered to your State masters. You can't help but to cleave to the cold metallic arms of your government husband wailing to ever more be provided to more. You have sacrificed your men on the alter of your desires for the very things you seek to NEED in him and with this become the source your own undoing and sorrow.

Below is a complimentary interview with Kay Hymowitz on the same subject matter. Also available at the end of the article after following the link above entitled "I have to agree"

Of course as men know the decline will ALL be blamed upon men not "manning up" to something or other. This of course is not true. I elaborate on how the developing matriarchal social construct affects all of this here One thing that affects young men's expectations of themselves is of course the fact that many of these young men are products of the feminist divorce generation. These young men know what place fathers hold in the family and in the lives of children. This is not something men want to commit to becoming.

Monday, May 23, 2011

Great thoughts! Certain truth to this. Now…I have asked myself, is the MRM susceptible to the same influences? Yes without a doubt it is. So what can protect the MRM from influence by a hate based power engine?

Well at this point anyway we have something on our side and that is a moral grounds. The MRM is a RESPONSE to feminism. Does this mean that we will be able to defend ourselves from the same poison? Well in my opinion we can utilize whatever forces available to reach our goals as long as they are constructive and rightful.

In the present time, the threat of a hate ideology serves nothing more than a threat to tarnish our message. It is only through actual action does any hate based motivation harm us. Words are actions we can help stamp out. At this point this is all we have to fear…words and the tarnishing of our message. The MRM is just now getting its teeth. At this point I am not very concerned about a radical fringe because we have little teeth yet to take a bite out of anything.

This is the threat from the female side of perception. She need only disagree. She is, in her gynocentric nature, predisposed to disagree with anything that may not serve her interests increasingly better no matter what the detriment to males is. Male harm or sacrifice is inconsequential. Through hypergamy she is designed to push the limits. To her, the selective value of males and male legitimacy is measured in this regard. It is literally measured by the male breaking point. She need only disagree with the terms the MRM is advocating for and these forces of motion come into play. This is where the second roadblock comes in…..men themselves and their response to this judgement by her.

The second side is that males, as a class, are a class divided. Unlike females, other males will capitalize upon the phenomena above. Where men draw the line with women and feminism other males will see their opportunity to swoop in to tow the feminist\female line. It is their opportunity to meet female selective variables demanded upon males. They may even be willing to die for this opportunity or at very least cut their own balls off and the balls of other men to get it.The sheer length to which I’ve seen manginas and white knights go has been astounding to me.

This is why MRAs are so adamant about protecting ourselves from manginas and white knights. They are a real force driven by a very powerful biological imperative. This is why females were not allowed to vote. Female voting destroys the regulatory mechanism of her selective choice to eliminate betas. Desperation was cut off. Now, politicians can be as beta as they want, in terms of serving females they are betas. The crux of the matter, the paradox is that they become alpha by this. Female institutional power and political agency leads to a self compounding and self consuming model. Intrinsic elements of female hypergamy are exercised through the power of the State. The system actually consumes itself of its own means of male enfranchisement. It consumes itself of its own means of production. No civilization that I know of has ever survived female institutional power. Matriarchies have only managed to exist in small matrilinial \ communal social groups.

As such, it is my belief that we may never be able to unite for our collective interests and indeed even the beneficial interests toward a common felicity with women under the event of this new found political paradigm we find ourselves in. Believe it or not, convincing women that male rights and enfranchisement are ends toward their better interests and common felicity with men is key. Will they be able to see it, we don’t know, we have not tried to a large degree.

Remember, the MRM by default, at least initially, is up against A MAJOR FORCE and that is that we as mere males are doomed to serve females as a gender. If he is seen as and labeled unworthy then he must be resentful of this and thus hate women.

Again, other males will capitalize on this especially males in government. Watch the President's body language closely, he winks at the women and after the last sentence licks his lips. Anybody who watches the Science channel on TV knows what this means. This is what men are up against:

We must somehow convince them that they will be safe without being provided to and protected to the death of men. This includes the changes women made to marriage and family law along with protections and provisions given to them in all realms. Others, such as "women first" Affiramative Action in college admissions are very important contenders to male welfare and common felicity with women. Government courts her well and he is a heavy contender. The below is just at the State Legislative level.http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/60.Lott_.Suffrage.complete-25633.pdf

These are the forces of biology we are up against. Males will break ranks and play into this. Anyone who doesn’t is seen as unworthy. Her upward demands of hypergamy exacerbates this to ever increasing levels. Only when a majority of males draw the line can we make progress. Even if this is achieved we will then need to contest her husband government, the female majority vote and the all powerful hegemonic female social agency that directs it. Otherwise females are designed to capitalize on the breaking point threshold of how much males will serve their ends.

The other option is to convince females we have passed the threshold toward the ends of meeting their own welfare and interests by the treatment of men and thus we can make progress even though white knights and manginas are willing to still lower the bar upon male treatment even further if it gets them female approval. However to the best of my knowledge women will not concede to this agreement, they will not do this, it is not in their nature. Will the MRM be able to stop the self compounding, self consumptious paradoxical mechanisms that are in play here? To tell you the truth the odds are against us. So for now, there is no need to worry to much about a radical fringe other than to keep hate words out of the discussion.

WHEN our goals are met is the time we should concern ourselves with overstepping. WHEN our goals are met I see the moral constitute of our base supporters going back to the pursuit of fruitful relationships and lives. At this point I see the core of the movement being taken over by radicals that will keep it going. However, we are a long way off from this. It is the least of our worries. Furthermore I see the same forces that attempt to preclude us from advancement as more than adequate mechanisms to shut down any radical fringe. Males, unlike females do not have the authority to propagate a radical fringe. (See: Disciplining Your Male Is Normal)

We must remember we are not playing by the same rules and forces that females have with their movement. Hate and criticism of males actually serves to raise the bar on all of us. She utilized the same mechanisms to enact her will and she will use the same to stop us.

As for now, for reasons of moral fortitude I believe much of our core base is in fact driven by a moral engine. It is when our goals are met and the constitute of our moral base falls away from the ranks that we could be left with a fire of radicalism. Again, we need not worry about this yet and as stated by reasons above, we may not have to worry about it at all.

However, IT IS OUR DUTY TO EXTINGUISH FIRES AS WE MOVE ALONG. ANTI-WOMAN HATRED CAN NOT BE TOLERATED.

It will only excite the white knights and manginas and give them something to work with no matter how small or even non existent. David Futrelle of manboobz is a perfect example. He’s taking beta opportunity when and where he sees it. David is mearly the manifestation of the very real force we contend with on a structural scale. To be quite honest, ANYTHING the MRM says and does will be seen as radical and misogynist anyway. However, at times I've seen him bring to light some needed constructive criticism. This is simply the biological battle we are up against i.e. female selective choice, hypergamy, white knight \ mangina supplicators and the political paradigm paradox of female political agency.

Female nature and the State create a relationship that is imperative for us to understand. For all intent of purpose the State can be viewed as male. It is my contention that the female majority vote along with female nature and it's license of agency will continue it's course. The results will increasingly not bode well.

It is also my contention that this general course is toward the communization and socilization of ever increasing protections and provisions for women through the increasing centralization and succession of power to the State. Men will increasingly be marginalized through this process at which point the consumptive process that this causes in the personal, social and economic realm will necessitate the clamoring for increased State action to increasingly do more. The marginalization of men is a self consuming process. Make no mistake, it is women, their majority vote, the power granted to the State by it along with the propensity of the State to seek power from it that will continue to direct our course as a nation.

Women are simply following forth to met the requisites of their nature, men are now and have always been an accessory for use to meet the ends of this gynocentric drive. It is only natural for women to create a relationship such as the above to what can be described as her government husband. It is he that she naturally chooses...and not a common felicity with men nor the enfranchisement of men to create such felicity.

Sunday, May 22, 2011

Female abuse is considered hypergamous discipline by the male primordial brain and by the females as well. It is also considered normal by the general population accordingly. We really don’t think of it as violence. Many men “yes dear” it and try to please her more. Many don’t think of it as abuse but rather a fight. Men are less likely than women to see it as abuse when it is directed toward themselves or other men. Women are less likely to see it as abuse as well. Men are also much less likely to call other men (police) for help or report it.

Compounding this issue is the fact that if he did call for help the other males would quickly play up to hypergamy and female selective preference by bettering him out of the game. This is done slamming his face to the concrete, cuffing him and hauling him off for her. This is also reinforced by these same base human propensities enacted by law through structured institutionalized chivalry into law. In fact most female political agency where gender is concerned is actually acted forth through the same mechanism. It is personified within the system by the same gendered biological imperatives toward meeting the ends of the female. Raising the bar upon males as to what constitutes their worthiness is normal, it is hypergamy.

The Violence Against Women Act ended due process under law for males. This in my mind is to be expected. My contention is that it is some sort of biological propensity in action manifested through chivalry and in this case mandated male unworthiness without trial. This makes the State and it's male workhorses worthy of females.

This despite the findings of the most recent large-scale study of DV that was conducted by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention researchers and published in the American Journal of Public Health. The study, which surveyed 11,000 men and women, found that according to both men's and women's accounts, 50 percent of the violence in their relationships was reciprocal (involving both parties). In those cases, the women were more likely to have been the first to strike. Moreover, when the violence was one-sided, both women and men said that women were the perpetrators about 70 percent of the time. LINK

Disciplining your male in some shape or form is standard fare. Female shaming has TREMENDOUS IMPACT upon the male psyche. Males respond quite readily to it. Sometimes having to compartmentalize and shut it out all together. Hypergamous critical nature is actually normal from females toward males. Females have the natural right to complain and to be critical and men do not.

It is so normal in fact that public display of it is accepted, it is considered ok. Watch the below video and imagine if the roles were reversed and it were men who shouted the answer “women”. Only the first portion showing the T.V. show is immediately relevant though the rest serves to exemplify the point. You are welcome to watch the entire video:

You see, mere males do not have the biological authority to scream out loud that we hate women. What occurred in the video would not have happened in reverse...it is forbidden for mere males to do so. We simply do not have the authority, indeed far from it, in fact mere criticism of women is often times labeled misogyny. This is why many shaming tactics of males involve alleging his biological unworthiness to fit the bill. Any criticism toward women is immediately deflected back as male unworthiness and therefore he must be bitter for not being worthy of females and as such he must hate women, he must be a misogynist or he must not be able to gain their favor with mating opportunity, he must not be able to get laid.

Mere males do not have the authority to be critical of women. Who do we think we are, we are the selective variable who must be worthy of her choice. Our value is wrapped up in male use and male external utility. Our value is not inherent as hers is. A male or man is not something one is by default but rather one must "be" a man. This implies action and male action implies use and use implies male external utility to women and society. Male value or worthiness in all realms is defined by this or the lack thereof.

Again, disciplining your male is normal, it involves voicing a general complaint or criticism or sometimes it involves beating him and yet other times calling other males to force him into submission. Our primordial brains automatically legitimize female criticism of males and interpret it as male unworthiness to live up to female selective choice. Suffice as to say that if the abuse was done in public most all would think the male did something wrong, that he deserves it. This is our collective hive mind analysis of female abuse toward males, this is to say that it is seen as rightful. The hive mind is always right in its assessment. Remember the quintessential game show gimme where you get to ask the audience? Do you remember how the audience is always right? This truth speaks volumes.

Female hypergamy often takes the form of standard fare misandry. Misandry is simply the embodiment vehicle for female hypergamy and associated critical nature. We must understand how females are naturally critical of males and what role this plays, from a "natural" perspective, toward our views of female on male abuse in any form and how it is normalized within culture. We must also ask how this must play out in our domestic perception of female on male abuse including within the legal system or simply within DV advocacy itself.

It is important to understand that it's not that violence against men doesn't happen, in fact violence against men is prevalent. The difference however is that violence against men simply doesn't matter to anyone. This is what the feminist webside Jezebel has to say about the majority of violent attacks being female on male: Have You Ever Beat Up A Boyfriend, Cause Uh We Have You can see that violence against men is not just ok but due to the status men hold, violence against men is ubiquitously seen as deserved. I can't help but to think that it must be natural and of biological origin due to the lack of inherent value that men hold compared to women. Suffice as to say that male welfare is simply not as important. The sheer volume of hatred, criticism and contempt of men that is demonstrated by women is (or at least it has become).....normal.

The American Psychological Association Journal of Family Psychology has found that, contrary to public perception, women committed more acts of violence than their male partners in 11 overall categories of violence. Specifically, women were more likely than men to throw something, push, grab, shove, slap, kick, bite, hit or threaten a partner with a deadly weapon such as a knife or gun.

Subscribe To REBUKING FEMINISM

About Me

Premise Claimer

To create a greater understanding of men and women and our struggle in todays society in the United States. Please feel free to contribute and offer your own writings and information in the comments section and at REBUKEFEM@YAHOO.COM.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or the people"

- 10th Amendment United States Constitution

Feminism stands on the principal of equality or classlessness. These principals are the hallmark of Marxist socialist theory. Essentially equal outcome by unequal means and unequal protection under law to reach these ends.

Males being a minority both in numbers and a minority of the voting majority has lead to class conflict, oppression and division based off "gender" of this minority class.

"Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, (the female voting and numerical majority) that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority (males) possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression" - President Thomas Jefferson.

Affirmative Action, Title IX, VAWA, Divorce, Family and Child Custody Law to name a few.

Make no mistake, women are not your natural enemy. However, they are the body politic of feminism and the female political agency responsible for it. All women are responsible for feminism and the actions of their union. They have created class division between men and women toward the ends of dividing us both. The division of male and female as separate classes with unequal representation under law and policy has been the principal means to usurp and rule our people. Feminism has destroyed the common felicity between men and women. Feminism removed ALL male rights in marriage and thus divorce while absolving women of all liability of commitment. Feminism has removed the right to fatherhood. Men have no place in the family and should not commit to the institution of it. We must both fight the tyranny of feminism.